Keys Writings, Part 6

This entry is part 8 of 34 in the series 2011C


To Ruth With Love
Aug 20, 2011

Ruth: Maybe the only real mistake I made was that I attacked what I saw as Illusion in people’s posts, which in turn, made them feel uneasy and they saw me in a bad light.

JJ I think this is a mistake you have been making. When you see illusion in what others are saying it is not wise to point it out each time you see it. I point out maybe 10-20% of the illusion I see going on. If I were to point it all out then I would be seen as very obnoxious. In addition to this there is always the chance the person pointing out the illusion is in more illusion than the one being pointed to.

The second key of judgment is crucial here.

Ruth: However, if over the years in my endeavor to travel this path of discipleship and challenge other’s illusions etc, I have hurt some people’s feelings, then I do truly apologize. Yes, I am not perfect. Yes, I have attacked some people who have come to this group only to hurt the credentials of JJ’s teachings

JJ I haven’t seen any supporter complain about that. If someone comes here with guns blazing then they are asking for it.

Ruth and Yes I can sound very blunt when I write, but at least I still have a fire in my heart and I am not that cold and unfeeling.

JJ No one has ever accused you of being cold and unfeeling so why bring this up? I think all realize you have a fire in your heart.

Ruth because I try to use my mental body as well. Using the mental body and working from that realm, does not mean that one then becomes unfeeling.

JJ Being polarized in the mental body has nothing to do with whether or not one has feelings for we all do. It means your decisions are made there.

Ruth Yes I can seem pushy. Yes, I have hit back when others hit me, but does this really detract away from who I am and what I want to achieve for the BOL? Obviously, for a select few of you here, it does.

JJ Actually, it does have an effect if you see yourself as a monitor of illusion and never let an illusion or error from someone else pass you by. Since you have been posting much more than anyone else you have a responsibility to use good judgment so that sincere seekers are not irritated or feel uncomfortable.

Ruth: Apparently, some here are that crystallized in looking only at my personality, that obviously JJ’s teachings have not sunk into their minds that well so far on seeing PAST the personality.

JJ This paragraph is an example of you making a judgment and somewhat irritating statement that can turn readers off. You are making the negative judgment that a number of members (apparently those who disagree with you) are crystallized and looking at your personality rather than your soul. My writings have not sunk in and they see only the past. This is pretty harsh and there is little evidence that it is even true. The worst part of it is that you see yourself as being virtuously honest rather than harshly judgmental when you make statements like this.

I think you need to stand back and monitor your effect on others and try and see your responsibility on the matter and then seek to be more harmless.

Ruth: Now after some contemplation over the past few days, I am going to have my say to JJ and Dan’s posts, as harmless as possible, because to some degree, I do feel like I was put through the Inquisition again.

JJ I think your imagination is running wild here. There has been some mild criticism and disagreement with you but it has been far from an inquisition, except in your mind.

Ruth: Yes I wanted to “force your hand”. You need to address some of these issues with your members or best friends sometimes JJ. Being mentally polarized does not mean one can sweep any emotional issues with friends under the carpet.

JJ I do not get involved every time someone feels emotional about something. This applies to my personal life as well as my online life. If I did I would never feel any peace. I only get involved when either my emotions or the well being of the group is substantially effected.

The time when sweeping emotions under the rug is negative is when it is a persons own emotions are effected and need to be dealt with and I do this when my emotions warrant it. I do not govern myself by what is decreed by the emotions of others, however. Have no power to sweep other people’s emotions under the rug.

Quoting JJ: You have always been oversensitive when the slightest criticism of you surfaces.

Ruth: Maybe that is because I am a woman? What you see as “oversensitive” is merely me expressing my true feelings and I deal with those feelings also. Maybe it would help if some men here got back in touch with their emotional/feminine side sometimes also? If I was that oversensitive I would have left the group ten years ago when I was verbally attacked by some of the members here in the Triads.

JJ You have left the group a number of times and did leave the Triads and it has little to do with you being a woman. Both males and females are sensitive to criticism and both sexes need to have a thick skin to be invoked in group endeavor. It is true that females are more grounded in emotion but both sexes have a difficult time with criticism.

Ruth I do not want to be commended. What I want is for some people to stop insinuating that I have constantly turned away people from this group with my posts. This is another lie.

JJ I’m sure I have turned people off being here myself so what makes you so sure you have not? Why do you think this is a lie when some tell you otherwise? Instead of dismissing this perhaps you ought to reflect on your own blind spots – you think you see them in me – perhaps you have them too.

Ruth: Only about 20% of my posts were attacking. Maybe I do not handle 1st Ray energy too well, but at least I tried to get a point across that I thought was going to help other people. JJ Sometimes I’m sure you did help people, but sometimes you have irritated them. When you get negative feedback, instead of dismissing it, you should examine it to see if there is any truth there.

Quoting JJ: My approach here and on the Sealed Portion has been the same. Sometimes when you have stood up for me either here or there I think you are doing a great job and other times I feel a little uncomfortable with your zeal. Then there are times you make mistakes about my thinking and I will correct you.

Ruth: Why didn’t you immediately point out to me when I made you feel a little uncomfortable, rather than say nothing about it until now?

JJ Because the few times I have given any criticism to you in the past has caused a very strong emotional reaction and you either threaten to quit the group or do quit for a time. I then wind up spending a lot of time going back and forth as we are now – for as you can see the mild criticism I gave you the other day has caused a strong reaction again. I therefore concluded that I will hold off criticizing you unless it completely necessary.

Ruth: Yet you would not stand up for me over here? Interesting, considering how many times I am criticized in this group.

JJ If people in the group give mild criticism of each other I usually do not get involved. Most of the criticism directed at you and others has been quite mild and often represents sincere feelings. Many of your criticisms also have been mild and I did see the need to get involved.

If I got involved every time there was a criticism here I would have time to do nothing else.

For me to comment on a criticism that is not directed at me it has to either disrupt the group or be outrageously untrue.

Ruth By implying to all your other students here that I had “endless” conflicts with John Crane also creates a negative view about me and my posts, and I thought that you would be above that. However, maybe you too, need to learn to choose your words more carefully when dealing with other people who have stood by you for many years.

JJ Yet when some tell you that you need to choose your words more carefully the situations becomes a full blown crises. Do you see me becoming highly offended because of this criticism that you just gave me? I could interpret it to mean that I should sit down and shut up.

Ruth: So instead of looking at the positives in my post, you guys skip over the most important part where I said “how can we get this book out into the public eye”, which surely is more important that what cover is on the front?

JJ When you accused the group of bickering – when they were not – this was insulting and this overshadowed anything you said afterwards. 99% of the people are affected this way when accused of something of which they feel not guilty.

Ruth; Why did you design a cover and then suggest that we have input? Isn’t that a bit back to front? That is like cooking us a dinner and then saying “what do you want to eat for dinner”?

JJ You’re criticizing me again! Maybe I’ll go ballistic.

No. It’s not like that. It’s like inviting people over for a dinner that is not ye cooked, but only planned (the book is not published yet). Then you get a sense that the guests are not happy with the meal so you ask them if the planned Pizza is okay or perhaps something else. Then a friend volunteers to make us ribeye steaks and we decide to go with that.

Ruth Logically if you wanted our input as a group, wouldn’t you have asked us first about a cover, rather than when it has been drawn up? That is what I was questioning? Is that too much of an attack question?

JJ Who in the world said you couldn’t ask a question.

I can’t ask what you think about a cover until I have a cover to show you. Because it is my book I decided to create a cover I liked. I have a perfect right to do this. However, we all want the book to succeed and if I get a strong response that another cover would work better I am open to this.

Ruth: Just because I mistakenly wrote “bickering” rather than “debating”, I am then berated by Dan and have false accusations made about me by Dan, and yet, you allow this also. Why? Because of freedom of speech?

JJ You really sound like a victim here. I suggest you rise above this mentality as it does not serve you well.

You dished out criticism and got some back and I am supposed to take sides. I do not do this unless the offense is egregious or someone presenting a definite falsehood.

Rob reamed Blayne with many times the intensity as anything you have received and he took it pretty good without lashing back.

Ruth: Is there really freedom of speech here? I do not think so. Socio has already said to me in a private email, that if I do not.

JJ What in the world does private emails have to do with your free speech here, especially concerning those who are not moderated? You say you do not have free speech because you have to watch your every word. Well, I have to watch my every word much more than you and do not see myself as being a victim without free speech and neither should you. This is a totally unjustified complaint.

Ruth (BTW, all I wrote to Socio was that Dan should stop sucking up JJ’s arse)!

JJ You must have missed the conflict Dan and I had over Eckhart Tolle which was anything but him sucking up.

Quoting JJ: It is true he could have been more diplomatic, but he responded there in a similar manner as you probably would have if the shoe was on the other foot.

RJ: This is another falsehood JJ and I cannot believe you of all people said this about me. I have NEVER said to another member here to sit back and shut up,

JJ You’re interpreting too much in black and white here. I didn’t mean you would respond in the exact same words, but in a similar manner. You just accused Dan of being a suck-up, which was just as negative.

Ruth: You do not scold Dan ever? You do not scold anyone that is your favorite old time member. You have plenty to say to me though about me always being on the “attack”.

JJ I haven’t criticized you for quite a while. Can you remember the last time I did (before the current conflict)? I can’t remember the last time I scolded anyone here. I try to avoid scolding.

I remind the group as a whole of the rules once in a while but these posts re for all.

Ruth: Maybe it is your fault for people leaving this group because you are the one who had the power to put me on permanent moderation for ten years, so that I never could offend anyone in the group ever, and so no one would leave. You could have shut my posts down years ago, if my “attacking” posts were that damaging, but you let me continue on with my defensiveness over you and with my apparent “brow beating”. So who is really at fault here?

JJ: First, I have never said your posts are “damaging.” We are having this conversation because you have had negative interplay with others besides myself.

Yes, I could have placed you on moderation but I didn’t think you warranted it. I take full responsibility for you not having been on moderation.

Since you have quit the group and signed back on you are automatically on moderation for a time (as are all who do this). For a time, I may give you advice on some of your posts before they are approved in the hope that your relationships here may improve.

Quoting JJ: Have I not given you enough pats on the back? Is that the problem here?

RJ: This statement is unnecessarily sarcastic. So this is the example I am to follow in your footsteps when I post in the future, yes?

JJ Fine with me. I wouldn’t find this type of talk offensive.

Ruth Where did I write in my post that I wanted pats on the back also?

JJ You have complained numerous times in this post (and previously) that I have favorites that do not include you. Obviously, I give them pats on the back and not you. Why else would you complain about my (imaginary) favorites unless you feel cheated out of pats on the back?


When some people here are making it seem that nearly all of my past posts to the group have been damaging.

JJ I do not think anyone here thinks “nearly all” your posts have been damaging.


Think again. I used to get encouragement for attacking back sometimes by you on the SP. You used to attack people on that political posting group in Boise that you were on. Why is that okay for you to do, but not me?

JJ I encourage putting someone in their place if they attack with guns blazing, but when we are among friends then we should treat them as friendly as possible. I see all those here who post regularly as my friends as well as most of the lurkers.

Quoting JJ: When someone disagrees with you, you need to ask yourself how you can respond in such a way that you appear poised and unruffled and in control of your emotions.

Ruth: Like I am doing now? Like I have done many times over the past ten years in most of my posts? 80% of the time I am in control of my emotions, but because I am a woman, I am always seen as being overtly emotional or oversensitive when I write something that you men don’t want to hear or do not like. Maybe it’s that old Mormon upbringing that I do not clearly understand? How are the women treated in Mormonville? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

JJ There you go again, insulting us guys by lumping us in with old school Mormons or fundamentalists. Normally, I would overlook this but since I am trying guide you to group harmony I am pointing this out.

Ruth: So do you always expect me to have such negative come backs?

JJ Always? You know better than that, but when someone gives an attack on you or posts illusion you often let then have it.

Ruth: No wonder your friends would prefer me to leave the group than stay here then..

JJ No one has said this that I know of. There you go playing the victim again.

Ruth: I am not playing the victim. You always use this excuse for those of us who see things a bit differently than you do.

JJ I don’t think so.

Ruth There are always enemies of God in this World. Maybe you should have pointed this out to me ten years ago, that I should only appear as a friendly little Queen, with no emotions,

JJ The problem here is going over your head. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have emotions. We all have emotions. You just have to read over your posts before sending them and use good judgment to make sure they do not insult anyone and are as harmless as possible.

Ruth: Did you not teach that a more mental person has to step back down into his emotional body to deal with other emotional people? I see Dan as emotional when he criticizes. Does that mean he is oversensitive also?

JJ Is it possible you are wrong about Dan? Think about it.

Quoting JJ There’s a lot of good things said and done here that receive no pats on the back. If I gave to everyone who deserved then I would be giving out so many they would be meaningless.

RJ: There are not 400 members posting here, so your pats on the back to the few who do post should at least be equal.

JJ Anyone who expects equal pats on the back for all will surely be disappointed for all are different with different talents and write on different subjects.

Ruth: For example. “Good point, Larry”, or “Good point, Judes”, or “Good point, Blayne”. So far, it is only “Good point, Dan” that you usually point out. I guess that is because Dan thinks like you do?

JJ You say you do not want pats on the back but you seem obsessed with pats on the back. Maybe some self-inspection is in order. I have given you compliments but it appears, not enough.

Ruth: Not everyone treats me as a friend here and that is to be expected. I can’t please everyone in life. We all form various friendships in life, and some more than others. My personality may repulse some here, so that they do not even want me on their friend list, and that is okay also.

JJ I think you are creating a bogyman here and if you do some minor fine-tuning of your wording then all here will suddenly seem friendly.

Ruth: Question: If your wife got emotional or upset at you, do you tell her to just let go of the astral stuff and come up higher and enjoy her time with you?

JJ Maybe not that same wording but something similar.

Ruth Is this how we are supposed to deal with our emotional conflicts and issues? That is not what you have taught.

JJ I believe we are supposed to deal with each situation with judgment to the best of our ability. I believe that you have not made certain corrections because you see yourself as having advanced beyond the astral and I thought that word would get your attention and maybe cause some introspection.

To be offended so easily is caused by astral thinking, but if you think you have risen above it, or only sink to it because of a mental decision, then you may not take the steps you need to escape the astral influence.

Ruth: We have to lay our cards on the table in a harmless manner. However some here, have various views on what defines harmless and what isn’t harmless, and now they have portrayed me as harmful in all my posts, rather than just some of my past posts.

JJ Again, I do not recall anyone saying all your posts are harmful. You are coming across as the victim again. I know you think that you do not see yourself as a victim, but you really come across that way and it would really help your relationship with many in the group if you did not project this image.

The second thing you could do to aid in your group relationships is to not concentrate on correcting illusion or mistakes of those friendly to the group. Instead just concentrate on making posts with good usable information and opinion.

I hope I haven’t hurt your feelings with this post as I value you highly as a member of the Keys and glad to see you progressing in knowledge. As always, I look forward to a long and productive relationship.

Re: Guns Blazing
Aug 20, 2011

No, Blayne would not be classified as “guns blazing” for he is here to sincerely contribute. He merely disagreed and that is fine. As a mater of fact I posted a complimentary note about how well he handled being ganged up on but it seemed to have gotten lost in the ethers.

We haven’t had too many guns blazing posters since we have been on moderation. The Benjamin Creme disciple was one as well as that unauthorized Dahesh disciple a while back. When there was no moderation we had Paul and Zia who seemed to only be here to set me straight. Others have come on making insults but they do not last long.

Overall the moderation program has helped a lot to stabilize the list. Now our main distraction is when a faithful member takes us temporarily off track.

Comments on Ruth
Aug 21, 2011

I thought I would make a few comments concerning the recent conflict.

Ruth has been my biggest defender as well as posting on the Keys more than any other member including myself.

Because of the recent conflict I would guess she feels that all this dedication she has demonstrated is not appreciated. I want to make it clear that she is appreciated. Many times over the years she has either defended me, the teachings, or just the plain truth and this has been very helpful and appreciated. Then there are a number of times she has been overzealous and rubbed a few the wrong way. Does this mean she is a failure and not appreciated?

No. Of course not. It means she is human with flaws and rough edges just like the rest of us.

Does it mean she should resign from the group (which she has) so she will no longer be any bother to us?

No. This is the line of least resistance – the easy path that doesn’t help the disciple to move to his next step.

What would I recommend she do then?

The same thing I have recommended to numerous seekers who have tread the path a few steps and then want to retreat because they step on a thorn. You cannot get to the path’s destination if you do not continue on the path and surmount the obstacles on the way.

Ruth has encountered an obstacle. Forget whether or not the problem is her fault or someone elses. It is now up to her to examine the obstacle and solve it so she can continue treading the path with joy.

The inclination of the seeker on hearing this advice is to say there are many paths to the same goal and he or she is just going to withdraw, do something different and maybe take a different path.

This seems the easy way out, but it is not. The reason is that the obstacle that is before her now will come back with a vengeance if she takes a new path. She has to begin at the beginning of a new path and while treading it will encountering the same obstacle again. Solving it will take much longer than if she just continues here and solves what is in front of her now.

Her recent conversation with Dan tells us that progress is here just waiting to be made.

Ruth is family here but all does not always run smooth with family relationships. Some family members irritate me now and then but I still love them and look forward to seeing them at family gatherings. Even so, I am sure I speak for all when I say that Ruth will be welcome back whenever she wants to join us again.

Book Cover2
Aug 21, 2011
Here are two variations of Steve’s book cover. Let me know what you think and which one you like best.

Re: The Five Tibetans
Aug 22, 2011

A while back Larry posted a video on some exercises that are supposed to restore a person to his youth. Here is the reference:

Then Dan found a booklet on it for us to download. You can find it here.

The theory is that the exercises stimulate the spin of the centers which slow down with age. The idea is that when we obtain the spin we had in our youth that we will grow younger.

It sounded pretty good so I decided to give it a try. You start with three repetitions and increase three a week until you get to the twenty-one.

I’ve finally got to the 21 repetitions so I thought I would give this a report.

I’m not sure if I am growing younger yet but 21 repetitions of the five exercises really gives you a workout where you need it and works a variety of muscles, especially the abdominal area.

I used to do yoga regularly many years ago but quit when I got too busy. I wish now I hadn’t because any yoga type exercises are good for you.

To the five exercises I have added my favorite yoga one which I am glad I have not lost the ability to do. This is the headstand. It’s fairly easy to do the wrong way where you put pressure on your head. This is an example of the wrong way: You can damage your neck if you stand directly on your head.

Here is me in my restored youthful body doing it the right way:

Okay. I admit that’s not me, but give me a while.

This guy does the exercise right in that he places his head in his arms and they take all the impact. Using this method one can do a headstand on a cement floor without harm.

This takes a little practice to achieve but it is exhilarating when you do and supplies good nourishment to the brain cells.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Series NavigationKeys Writings, Part 5Keys Writings, Part 7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *